VZCZCXYZ0002
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHJA #2564/01 0572354
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 262354Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY JAKARTA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 0175

UNCLAS JAKARTA 002564 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR IIP, ALEX FELDMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OIIP OPRC KPAO ID
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTING INDONESIA'S BROADCASTING LAW 
 
REF: JAKARTA 01820 
 
SUMMARY:  The visit of the Coordinator of the Office of 
International Information Programs, Alexander Feldman, was 
an opportunity to directly engage with the various 
constituencies in the on-going discussion of the new 
implementing regulations to the Indonesian Broadcast Law of 
¶2002.  In a series of meetings, Mr. Feldman spoke with 
Sofyan Djalil, Minister of Communication and Information; 
members of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI); 
members of Parliament who sit on the Commission directly 
involved in the legislation; senior executives and programs 
in the broadcasting industry; and journalists and 
representatives of media NGOs.  While the result was 
reminiscent of the fable of the blind men and the elephant 
(each group sees the situation very differently) several 
conclusions emerged: 
--While direct foreign broadcasts may be affected, it does 
not appear that banning foreign news programs is the 
principal or even a primary goal of the regulations. 
--Some media observers saw a developing trend toward the 
government seeking to reassert control over the media. 
While some increased control is possible, especially 
regulation of the airwaves, reforms have gone too far and 
too deep for any major change in Indonesia's commitment to 
media freedom. 
--The heart of the issue is a dispute over whether the 
Ministry or the KPI will control the potentially lucrative 
area of licensing approval. 
END SUMMARY 
 
¶2. In his discussion of the implementing regulations of the 
Broadcast Bill of 2002, Minister of Communication and 
Information Sofyan Djalil stressed that the law sought to 
put the burden of responsibility for program content on the 
stations.  He emphasized that broadcasters needed to ensure 
that inflammatory news stories (he cited the Danish cartoon 
controversy as an example), sadistic violence, and 
pornography not be allowed on the air.  Since it is 
impossible to monitor directly relayed material, a tape 
delay is essential to ensure that this sort of material not 
be broadcast.  The minister was vague, however, on just what 
sort of a delay would be acceptable, merely noting that the 
details remained to be worked out.  He was equally vague on 
the standards that would be used in determining what was 
acceptable or unacceptable.   Mr. Feldman pointed out that 
the new regulations were drawing serious criticism in 
foreign media to the detriment of Indonesia's post-reformasi 
image of a free and open media.   He noted that the free 
flow of information benefited Indonesia by making world news 
available to decision makers.  He also noted that the idea 
of a delay had precedent in the region, pointing out that 
the restrictive model of delays used in Malaysia may not be 
the best pattern for Indonesia to adopt.   The minister 
again asserted that the highly "professional broadcasters of 
VOA" had nothing to fear from the new regulations and that 
"we will work out the details later, but VOA will not be off 
the air."  At the moment, broadcasters seem to be dealing 
with the new regulations either by introducing a delay or by 
simply ignoring the requirement (REF: JAKARTA 01820) and 
there is no evidence that the new regulations have affected 
VOA, or other foreign broadcasts that are carried on the 
airwaves.   (Note:  The regulations do not/not affect cable 
or satellite broadcasting). 
 
¶3. Turning to other aspects of the broadcasting law, 
Minister Djalil discussed the current dispute between the 
Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) and the Ministry 
over licensing authority.   Minister Djalil observed that 
during the period between the abolition of President 
Soeharto's all-powerful Ministry of Information and now, the 
broadcasting industry had been totally without a regulatory 
body.  During that period, broadcast licenses were not 
renewed and many radio stations sprang up operating without 
licenses.   The minister feels that regaining control of the 
airwaves is an essential task and expressed his view that 
the Ministry needs to work with the KPI to ensure a system 
of checks and balances.   Leaving all the decision-making 
power in the hands of the KPI, would in the minister's view, 
be dangerous since it would centralize power in the hands of 
one organization.   Seeking to merge the restrictions on 
foreign direct broadcasts with this dispute over the role of 
the KPI, Minister Djalil implied that the KPI might be more 
subject to nationalist sentiment and might even wind up 
banning all foreign broadcasts from local airwaves. 
[Comment: This was the first time we have heard this 
argument raised and it is not what we have been hearing from 
the KPI or any other media observer.] 
 
¶4. In a meeting with journalists and representatives of 
media NGOs, a very different view emerged.  Media activist 
and member of the National Press Council Leo Batubara was 
outspoken in his assertion that this was the first step in 
an attempt by the government to recreate the powerful media 
controls of the Soeharto era.  Although the current issue 
involves a regulation that would affect only one or two 
foreign broadcasters, whose program content is carried on 
Indonesian affiliates, leaving satellite and cable 
untouched, Batubara sees this as first step in a wide effort 
to throttle Indonesia's free media.   In this view, once 
control is established in this area, the precedent is set 
for restrictions that would eventually include the crucial 
issue - the domestic media.    While few other observers 
were willing to go this far, there was general agreement 
among media activists that the Ministry was trying to 
undercut the semi-independent KPI, an institution that had 
been set up in imitation of the U.S. Federal Communications 
Commission.   There was general agreement that the ministry 
wanted to sideline the commission and that this was driven 
by a desire to ensure that the ministry would have the 
important, and profitable, final say on licensing issues. 
One of the journalists observed that as licenses came up for 
renewal, the ministry was far more likely to be involved in 
corruption than the independent KPI. 
 
¶5. Members of the KPI expressed their gratitude for USG 
interest in the case when they met with Mr. Feldman.  They 
felt that the implementing regulations, including the idea 
of a delay on direct broadcasts, were a problem, noting that 
this has caused VOA's affiliates to drop the interactive 
portion of the VOA morning program.   KPI representatives 
noted that the ministry is seeking to gain greater control 
by a) limiting the number of provinces that can be reached 
by one station, b) issuing new licenses, c) renewing 
existing licenses, and d) issuing regulations regarding 
management.  Taken together, they constitute an effort to 
limit media freedom.   On the key issue of licensing, KPI 
member Ade Armando noted that there are a number of stations 
broadcasting without a license since there were no renewals 
or new licenses issued during the period when the Ministry 
of Communications and Information had been disbanded.  As a 
result, there are too many stations for too little 
bandwidth.  Ade recognized that this needs to be changed, 
but he noted that as the situation is remedied, there will 
be competition for airspace and opportunity for bribery.  In 
his view, this is the key reason why the Ministry is so 
eager to reassert control. 
 
¶6. During meetings with media executives, a similar view of 
the KPI-Ministry struggle emerged, but the conclusions were 
different.  While all of the stations carry considerable 
U.S. program material, few carried direct foreign 
broadcasting (largely news) that would be affected by the 
new regulations.  An official of Trans TV asserted that one 
concern of the Indonesian parliament was to stop 
televangelists from putting Indonesia's sometimes fragile 
inter-religious relationship under stress, an explanation 
that seems doubtful given that the only evangelical 
broadcasts are found on cable and satellite TV.  For the 
broadcasters, however, the issue was again licensing; one 
senior program manager observed that the reason the industry 
was supporting the ministry in its dispute with the KPI was 
that they thought it would be easier to deal with the 
professionals in the ministry who have had experience 
handling licensing issues than the inexperienced and 
unpredictable academics who make up most of the KPI. 
 
¶7. The final group to offer its opinion was members of the 
parliament's (DPR) Commission I.  Member Djoko Suslio noted 
that he was one of the original drafters of the Broadcasting 
law and that it was written in a deliberate attempt to 
imitate the U.S. FCC.  The parliamentary commission had, 
just that week, rejected the implementing regulations and 
was seeking to send the matter to the Constitutional Court. 
Djoko opined that the ministry was seeking to undo what the 
parliament had done in setting up an independent body and 
observed, in agreement with NGO observers, that the ministry 
is more likely to take bribes than the KPI.  The parliament 
recognizes that the extended period of media anarchy needs 
to end but Djoko proposes open and transparent auctions of 
licenses and clear regulations ending the transfer of 
licenses.  He cited several examples of how licenses 
obtained by one individual are "sold" to media conglomerates 
for large sums of money.  As for foreign broadcasters, 
members of parliament admitted that they had problems with 
some of the broadcasts but stressed the need to regulate 
rather than ban. 
 
¶8. Comment:  In the end, as with so many disputes in 
Indonesia, the key issue in the implementing regulations of 
the broadcast law is money.  Parliament, the NGO community 
and the KPI line up against the industry and the ministry. 
At stake is a considerable amount of money to be realized 
over the sale and renewal of broadcasting licenses.   There 
are, too be sure, other issues and the delay of direct 
broadcasts is one, but these are secondary issues.   Like 
many laws, this one has a bit of something for everyone, and 
while there may be some who would like to turn the clock 
back to the Soeharto era, there is little indication that 
this can or will happen.  As for VOA and BBC broadcasts, 
these will most likely be dealt with through an "Indonesian" 
solution that will allow broadcasts to continue with what we 
hope will be minimal disruption. 
 
PASCOE